Arctic Sea Ice Road Maps
Back
Menu

State of Approach

Overview
Version published: 
September 12, 2024 - 9:19pm
September 12, 2024 - 9:19pm September 9, 2024 - 3:40pm September 9, 2024 - 1:41pm September 5, 2024 - 7:13pm August 28, 2024 - 3:28am

Glossary of road map assessment parameters

Description of approach

  • Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of the rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution (IEA 2024). Per ton, methane has > 80 times the warming of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe and persists in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, on the order of a decade (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, IGSD 2023). Methane is also a precursor of tropospheric ozone and plays an important role in complex, non-linear atmospheric chemistry. Atmospheric methane removal is under consideration as a pathway to limit near-term warming (IGSD 2023). Methane is found at low concentrations in the atmosphere (approximately 2 parts per million), however, making methane removal a challenging prospect (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). Pathways for atmospheric methane removal include open-system approaches that would modify the atmosphere or ecosystems (e.g., atmospheric oxidation enhancement, methane oxidizing coatings for surfaces, and terrestrial methanotrophy enhancement), and closed-system approaches using methane oxidizing reactors (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). For a deep exploration of methane removal see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.

Description of what it does mechanistically

Spatial extent (size)

  • Unknown and will depend on approach
    • Closed-system approaches will likely have a smaller spatial extent than open-system approaches.

Where applied – vertically

  • Varies by approach. Some would happen in the atmosphere and others would happen at the Earth’s surface (through biological or mechanical systems).

Where applied – geographically (regional vs global application, is it targeting the Arctic?)

  • Global application
    • Methane is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and therefore, methane emissions reductions could happen outside of the Arctic and still make a difference in the Arctic.

When effective (summer, winter, all year)

  • All year
Glossary of road map assessment parameters Description of approach
  • Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of the rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution (IEA 2024). Per ton, methane has > 80 times the warming of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe and persists in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, on the order of a decade (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, IGSD 2023). Methane is also a precursor of tropospheric ozone and plays an important role in complex, non-linear atmospheric chemistry. Atmospheric methane removal is under consideration as a pathway to limit near-term warming (IGSD 2023). Methane is found at low concentrations in the atmosphere (approximately 2 parts per million), however, making methane removal a challenging prospect (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). Pathways for atmospheric methane removal include open-system approaches that would modify the atmosphere or ecosystems (e.g., atmospheric oxidation enhancement, methane oxidizing coatings for surfaces, and terrestrial methanotrophy enhancement), and closed-system approaches using methane oxidizing reactors (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). For a deep exploration of methane removal see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.
Description of what it does mechanistically Spatial extent (size)
  • Unknown and will depend on approach
    • Closed-system approaches will likely have a smaller spatial extent than open-system approaches.
Where applied – vertically
  • Varies by approach. Some would happen in the atmosphere and others would happen at the Earth’s surface (through biological or mechanical systems).
Where applied – geographically (regional vs global application, is it targeting the Arctic?)
  • Global application
    • Methane is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and therefore, methane emissions reductions could happen outside of the Arctic and still make a difference in the Arctic.
When effective (summer, winter, all year)
  • All year
Description of approach
  • Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of the rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution (IEA 2024). Per ton, methane has > 80 times the warming of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe and persists in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, on the order of a decade (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, IGSD 2023). Methane is also a precursor of tropospheric ozone and plays an important role in complex, non-linear atmospheric chemistry. Atmospheric methane removal is under consideration as a pathway to limit near-term warming (IGSD 2023). Methane is found at low concentrations in the atmosphere (approximately 2 parts per million), however, making methane removal a challenging prospect (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). Pathways for atmospheric methane removal include open-system approaches that would modify the atmosphere or ecosystems (e.g., atmospheric oxidation enhancement, methane oxidizing coatings for surfaces, and terrestrial methanotrophy enhancement), and closed-system approaches using methane oxidizing reactors (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). For a deep exploration of methane removal see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.
Description of what it does mechanistically Spatial extent (size)
  • Unknown and will depend on approach
    • Closed-system approaches will likely have a smaller spatial extent than open-system approaches.
Where applied – vertically
  • Varies by approach. Some would happen in the atmosphere and others would happen at the Earth’s surface (through biological or mechanical systems).
Where applied – geographically (regional vs global application, is it targeting the Arctic?)
  • Global application
    • Methane is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and therefore, methane emissions reductions could happen outside of the Arctic and still make a difference in the Arctic.
When effective (summer, winter, all year)
  • All year
Description of approach
  • Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of the rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution (IEA 2024). Per ton, methane has > 80 times the warming of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe and persists in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, on the order of a decade (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, IGSD 2023). Methane is also a precursor of tropospheric ozone and plays an important role in complex, non-linear atmospheric chemistry. Atmospheric methane removal is under consideration as a pathway to limit near-term warming (IGSD 2023). Methane is found at low concentrations in the atmosphere (approximately 2 parts per million), however, making methane removal a challenging prospect (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). Pathways for atmospheric methane removal include open-system approaches that would modify the atmosphere or ecosystems (e.g., atmospheric oxidation enhancement, methane oxidizing coatings for surfaces, and terrestrial methanotrophy enhancement), and closed-system approaches using methane oxidizing reactors (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). For a deep exploration of methane removal see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.
Description of what it does mechanistically Spatial extent (size)
  • Unknown and will depend on approach
    • Closed-system approaches will likely have a smaller spatial extent than open-system approaches
Where applied – vertically
  • Varies by approach. Some would happen in the atmosphere and others would happen at the Earth’s surface (through biological or mechanical systems).
Where applied – geographically (regional vs global application, is it targeting the Arctic?)
  • Global application
    • Methane is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and therefore, methane emissions reductions could happen outside of the Arctic and still make a difference in the Arctic
When effective (summer, winter, all year)
  • All year
Description of approach
  • Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of the rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution (IEA 2024). Per ton, methane has > 80 times the warming of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe and persists in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, on the order of a decade (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, IGSD 2023). Methane is also a precursor of tropospheric ozone and plays an important role in complex, non-linear atmospheric chemistry. Atmospheric methane removal is under consideration as a pathway to limit near-term warming (IGSD 2023). Methane is found at low concentrations in the atmosphere (approximately 2 parts per million), however, making methane removal a challenging prospect (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). Pathways for atmospheric methane removal include open-system approaches that would modify the atmosphere or ecosystems (e.g., atmospheric oxidation enhancement, methane oxidizing coatings for surfaces, and terrestrial methanotrophy enhancement), and closed-system approaches using methane oxidizing reactors (Abernethy and Jackson 2024). For a deep exploration of methane removal see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.
Description of what it does mechanistically Spatial extent (size)
  • Unknown and will depend on approach
    • Closed-system approaches will likely have a smaller spatial extent than open-system approaches
Where applied – vertically
  • Varies by approach. Some would happen in the atmosphere and others would happen at the Earth’s surface (through biological or mechanical systems).
Where applied – geographically (regional vs global application, is it targeting the Arctic?)
  • Global application
    • Methane is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and therefore, methane emissions reductions could happen outside of the Arctic and still make a difference in the Arctic
When effective? (summer, winter, all year)
  • All year

Projects from Ocean CDR Community

Read More

Potential
Version published: 
September 13, 2024 - 9:16pm
September 13, 2024 - 9:16pm September 13, 2024 - 3:27pm September 9, 2024 - 3:41pm September 9, 2024 - 3:41pm September 5, 2024 - 7:17pm August 28, 2024 - 3:28am

Impact on

Albedo

  • Potential for increased albedo as side effect of some methods, such as dispersing aerosols in atmosphere (Oeste et al. 2017).

Temperature

  • Global
    • Decrease of 0.02°C – 0.48°C
      • Removing approximately 3 years of methane emissions would decrease temperatures 0.21°C (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Continuous removal of 10 Mt of methane per year would decrease temperatures 0.02°C (Spark Climate Solutions 2024).
      • Modeling study reports 0.4°C temperature decrease by 2050 with 40% reduction in methane by 2050 (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Oxidizing all anthropogenic methane emissions would lead to an average decrease in temperature of 0.48°C (Abernethy et al. 2023).
      • Impacts on global temperature would be dependent on future potential scale of approaches and research and development efforts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown

Radiation budget

  • Global
    • Unknown
      • While the intention of methane removal is to reduce retention of out-going long-wavelength radiation, uncertainties related to net efficiency and side effects prevent any accurate estimate of the ultimate impacts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown

Sea ice

  • Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
    • Indirect via decreases in greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent decreases in warming.
  • New or old ice?
    • Both
  • Impact on sea ice
    • Unknown

Scalability

Spatial scalability

  • Unknown
    • Varies across approaches with some for potential to removal >10 Mt CH4/yr (0.01 Gt CH4/yr) and others with more limited potential <1 Mt CH4/yr (0.001 Gt CH4/yr) (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, note that these are early estimates). The spatial area required achieve this potential is unknown.

Efficiency

Timeline to scalability

Timeline to global impact (has to be within 20 yr)

  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years.

Timeline to Arctic region impact (has to be within 20 yr)

  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years.

Cost

Economic cost

  • Unknown
    • Depends on further approach development and evaluation.
    • Spark Climate Solutions (2024) defines an approach as cost-effective “if the social benefit of the removed methane, and the net of all other effects, is greater than the economic social cost incurred.” Iron salt aerosols, a type of atmospheric oxidation enhancement, are identified as being potentially cost-plausible. Other techniques require increases in catalytic efficiency and other areas.

CO2 footprint

  • Unknown

Impact on

Albedo
  • Potential for increased albedo as side effect of some methods, such as dispersing aerosols in atmosphere (Oeste et al. 2017).
Temperature
  • Global
    • Decrease of 0.02°C – 0.48°C
      • Removing approximately 3 years of methane emissions would decrease temperatures 0.21°C (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Continuous removal of 10 Mt of methane per year would decrease temperatures 0.02°C (Spark Climate Solutions 2024).
      • Modeling study reports 0.4°C temperature decrease by 2050 with 40% reduction in methane by 2050 (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Oxidizing all anthropogenic methane emissions would lead to an average decrease in temperature of 0.48°C (Abernethy et al. 2023).
      • Impacts on global temperature would be dependent on future potential scale of approaches and research and development efforts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Radiation budget
  • Global
    • Unknown
      • While the intention of methane removal is to reduce retention of out-going long-wavelength radiation, uncertainties related to net efficiency and side effects prevent any accurate estimate of the ultimate impacts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Sea ice
  • Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
    • Indirect via decreases in greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent decreases in warming.
  • New or old ice?
    • Both
  • Impact on sea ice
    • Unknown

Scalability

Spatial scalability
  • Unknown
    • Varies across approaches with some for potential to removal >10 Mt CH4/yr (0.01 Gt CH4/yr) and others with more limited potential <1 Mt CH4/yr (0.001 Gt CH4/yr) (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, note that these are early estimates). The spatial area required achieve this potential is unknown.
Efficiency Timeline to scalability Timeline to global impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years.
Timeline to Arctic region impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years.

Cost

Economic cost
  • Unknown
    • Depends on further approach development and evaluation.
    • Spark Climate Solutions (2024) defines an approach as cost-effective “if the social benefit of the removed methane, and the net of all other effects, is greater than the economic social cost incurred.” Iron salt aerosols, a type of atmospheric oxidation enhancement, are identified as being potentially cost-plausible. Other techniques require increases in catalytic efficiency and other areas.
CO2 footprint
  • Unknown

Impact on

Albedo
  • Potential for increased albedo as side effect of some methods, such as dispersing aerosols in atmosphere (Oeste et al. 2017).
Temperature
  • Global
    • Decrease of 0.02°C – 0.48°C
      • Removing approximately 3 years of methane emissions would decrease temperatures 0.21°C (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Continuous removal of 10 Mt of methane per year would decrease temperatures 0.02°C (Spark Climate Solutions 2024).
      • Modeling study reports 0.4°C temperature decrease by 2050 with 40% reduction in methane by 2050 (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Oxidizing all anthropogenic methane emissions would lead to an average decrease in temperature of 0.48°C (Abernethy et al. 2023).
      • Impacts on global temperature would be dependent on future potential scale of approaches and research and development efforts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Radiation budget
  • Global
    • Unknown
      • While the intention of methane removal is to reduce retention of out-going long-wavelength radiation, uncertainties related to net efficiency and side effects prevent any accurate estimate of the ultimate impacts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Sea ice
  • Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
    • Indirect via decreases in greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent decreases in warming
  • New or old ice?
    • Both
  • Impact on sea ice
    • Unknown

Scalability

Spatial scalability
  • Unknown
    • Varies across approaches with some for potential to removal >10 Mt CH4/yr (0.01 Gt CH4/yr) and others with more limited potential <1 Mt CH4/yr (0.001 Gt CH4/yr) (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, note that these are early estimates). The spatial area required achieve this potential is unknown.
Efficiency Timeline to scalability Timeline to global impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years.
Timeline to Arctic region impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years.

Cost

Economic cost
  • Unknown
    • Depends on further approach development and evaluation.
    • Spark Climate Solutions (2024) defines an approach as cost-effective “if the social benefit of the removed methane, and the net of all other effects, is greater than the economic social cost incurred.” Iron salt aerosols, a type of atmospheric oxidation enhancement, are identified as being potentially cost-plausible. Other techniques require increases in catalytic efficiency and other areas.
CO2 footprint
  • Unknown

Impact on

Albedo
  • Potential for increased albedo as side effect of some methods, such as dispersing aerosols in atmosphere (Oeste et al. 2017).
Temperature
  • Global
    • Decrease of 0.02°C – 0.48°C
      • Removing approximately 3 years of methane emissions would decrease temperatures 0.21°C (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Continuous removal of 10 Mt of methane per year would decrease temperatures 0.02°C (Spark Climate Solutions 2024).
      • Modeling study reports 0.4°C temperature decrease by 2050 with 40% reduction in methane by 2050 (Abernethy et al. 2021).
      • Oxidizing all anthropogenic methane emissions would lead to an average decrease in temperature of 0.48°C (Abernethy et al. 2023).
      • Impacts on global temperature would be dependent on future potential scale of approaches and research and development efforts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Radiation budget
  • Global
    • Unknown
      • While the intention of methane removal is to reduce retention of out-going long-wavelength radiation, uncertainties related to net efficiency and side effects prevent any accurate estimate of the ultimate impacts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Sea ice
  • Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
    • Indirect via decreases in greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent decreases in warming
  • New or old ice?
    • Both
  • Impact on sea ice
    • Unknown

Scalability

Spatial scalability
  • Unknown
    • Varies across approaches with some for potential to removal >10 Mt CH4/yr (0.01 Gt CH4/yr) and others with more limited potential <1 Mt CH4/yr (0.001 Gt CH4/yr) (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, note that these are early estimates). The spatial area required achieve this potential is unknown.
Efficiency Timeline to scalability Timeline to global impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years
Timeline to Arctic region impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years

Cost

Economic cost
  • Unknown
    • Depends on further approach development and evaluation.
    • Spark Climate Solutions (2024) defines an approach as cost-effective “if the social benefit of the removed methane, and the net of all other effects, is greater than the economic social cost incurred.” Iron salt aerosols, a type of atmospheric oxidation enhancement, are identified as being potentially cost-plausible. Other techniques require increases in catalytic efficiency and other areas.
CO2 footprint
  • Unknown

Impact on

Albedo
  • Potential for increased albedo as side effect of some methods, such as dispersing aerosols in atmosphere (Oeste et al. 2017).
Temperature
  • Global
    • Decrease of 0.02°C – 0.48°C
      • Removing approximately 3 years of methane emissions would decrease temperatures 0.21°C (Abernethy et al. 2021)
      • Continuous removal of 10 Mt of methane per year would decrease temperatures 0.02°C (Spark Climate Solutions 2024)
      • Modeling study reports 0.4°C temperature decrease by 2050 with 40% reduction in methane by 2050 (Abernethy et al. 2021)
      • Oxidizing all anthropogenic methane emissions would lead to an average decrease in temperature of 0.48°C (Abernethy et al. 2023)
      • Impacts on global temperature would be dependent on future potential scale of approaches and research and development efforts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Radiation budget
  • Global
    • Unknown
      • While the intention of methane removal is to reduce retention of out-going long-wavelength radiation, uncertainties related to net efficiency and side effects prevent any accurate estimate of the ultimate impacts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Sea ice
  • Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
    • Indirect via decreases in greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent decreases in warming
  • New or old ice?
    • Both
  • Impact on sea ice
    • Unknown

Scalability

Spatial scalability
  • Unknown
    • Varies across approaches with some for potential to removal >10 Mt CH4/yr (0.01 Gt CH4/yr) and others with more limited potential <1 Mt CH4/yr (0.001 Gt CH4/yr) (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, note that these are early estimates). The spatial area required achieve this potential is unknown.
Efficiency Timeline to scalability Timeline to global impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years
Timeline to Arctic region impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years

Cost

Economic cost
  • Unknown
    • Depends on further approach development and evaluation.
    • Spark Climate Solutions (2024) defines an approach as cost-effective “if the social benefit of the removed methane, and the net of all other effects, is greater than the economic social cost incurred.” Iron salt aerosols, a type of atmospheric oxidation enhancement, are identified as being potentially cost-plausible. Other techniques require increases in catalytic efficiency and other areas.
CO2 footprint
  • Unknown

Impact on

Albedo
  • Potential for increased albedo as side effect of some methods, such as dispersing aerosols in atmosphere (Oeste et al. 2017).
Temperature
  • Global
    • 02°C – 0.48°C
      • Removing approximately 3 years of methane emissions would decrease temperatures 0.21°C (Abernethy et al. 2021)
      • Continuous removal of 10 Mt of methane per year would decrease temperatures 0.02°C (Spark Climate Solutions 2024)
      • Modeling study reports 0.4°C temperature decrease by 2050 with 40% reduction in methane by 2050 (Abernethy et al. 2021)
      • Oxidizing all anthropogenic methane emissions would lead to an average decrease in temperature of 0.48°C (Abernethy et al. 2023)
      • Impacts on global temperature would be dependent on future potential scale of approaches and research and development efforts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Radiation budget
  • Global
    • Unknown
      • While the intention of methane removal is to reduce retention of out-going long-wavelength radiation, uncertainties related to net efficiency and side effects prevent any accurate estimate of the ultimate impacts.
  • Arctic region
    • Unknown
Sea ice
  • Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
    • Indirect via decreases in greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent decreases in warming
  • New or old ice?
    • Both
  • Impact on sea ice
    • Unknown

Scalability

Spatial scalability
  • Unknown
    • Varies across approaches with some for potential to removal >10 Mt CH4/yr (0.01 Gt CH4/yr) and others with more limited potential <1 Mt CH4/yr (0.001 Gt CH4/yr) (Spark Climate Solutions 2024, note that these are early estimates). The spatial area required achieve this potential is unknown.
Efficiency Timeline to scalability Timeline to global impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years
Timeline to Arctic region impact (has to be within 20 yr)
  • Possible for approaches with potential to scale in <10 years

Cost

Economic cost
  • Unknown
    • Depends on further approach development and evaluation.
    • Spark Climate Solutions (2024) defines an approach as cost-effective “if the social benefit of the removed methane, and the net of all other effects, is greater than the economic social cost incurred.” Iron salt aerosols, a type of atmospheric oxidation enhancement, are identified as being potentially cost-plausible. Other techniques require increases in catalytic efficiency and other areas.
CO2 footprint
  • Unknown

Projects from Ocean CDR Community

Read More

Technology readiness
Version published: 
September 13, 2024 - 9:17pm
September 13, 2024 - 9:17pm September 13, 2024 - 3:28pm September 12, 2024 - 6:48pm September 10, 2024 - 6:57pm September 9, 2024 - 5:55pm September 5, 2024 - 7:18pm August 28, 2024 - 3:28am

TRL

Technical feasibility within 10 yrs

  • Feasible for some approaches.
TRL Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Feasible for some approaches.
TRL Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Feasible for some approaches
  • Will depend on research and development; see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.
TRL Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
TRL Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
TRL Technical feasibility within 10 yrs

Projects from Ocean CDR Community

Read More

Socio-ecological co-benefits and risks
Version published: 
September 13, 2024 - 3:29pm
September 13, 2024 - 3:29pm September 9, 2024 - 11:52pm September 9, 2024 - 11:50pm September 9, 2024 - 6:24pm September 9, 2024 - 3:43pm September 5, 2024 - 7:21pm September 5, 2024 - 7:20pm August 28, 2024 - 3:28am

Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available.

Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach. For a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.

Physical and chemical changes

  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).

Impacts on species

  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks

Impacts on ecosystems

  • Co-benefits
  • Risks

Impacts on society

Ease of reversibility

  • Not reversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.

Risk of termination shock

  • Low
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.
Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available. Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach. For a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.

Physical and chemical changes

  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).

Impacts on species

  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks

Impacts on ecosystems

  • Co-benefits
  • Risks

Impacts on society

Ease of reversibility

  • Not reversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.

Risk of termination shock

  • Low
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.
Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available. Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach, for a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.

Physical and chemical changes

  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).

Impacts on species

  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks

Impacts on ecosystems

  • Co-benefits
  • Risks

Impacts on society

Ease of reversibility

  • Not reversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.

Risk of termination shock

  • Low
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.
Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available. Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach, for a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.

Physical and chemical changes

  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).

Impacts on species

  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks

Impacts on ecosystems

  • Co-benefits
  • Risks

Impacts on society

Ease of reversibility

  • Irreversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.

Risk of termination shock

  • Low
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.
Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available. Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach, for a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer.

Physical and chemical changes

  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).

Impacts on species

  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks

Impacts on ecosystems

  • Co-benefits
  • Risks

Impacts on society

Ease of reversibility

  • Irreversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.

Risk of termination shock

  • Low risk
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.
Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available. Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach, for a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer. Physical and chemical changes
  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
Impacts on species
  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks
Impacts on ecosystems
  • Co-benefits
  • Risks
Impacts on society Ease of reversibility
  • Irreversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.
Risk of termination shock
  • Low risk
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.
Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available. Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach, for a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer Physical and chemical changes
  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
Impacts on species
  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks
Impacts on ecosystems
  • Co-benefits
  • Risks
Impacts on society Ease of reversibility
  • Irreversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.
Risk of termination shock
  • Low risk
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.
Missing information in this section does not indicate the absence of risks or co-benefits; it simply reflects that sufficient information is not yet available. Co-benefits and risks of methane removal are largely unknown and will vary by approach, for a summary of health and ecosystem impacts, concerns, and uncertainties for particularly approaches see Spark Climate Solutions’ Atmospheric Methane Primer Physical and chemical changes
  • Co-benefits
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
  • Risks
    • Open-system approaches have higher risks of unintended consequences than closed-system approaches (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
    • Changes in air quality (Jackson et al. 2021); unknown if this impact will be improved or diminished air quality (S. Abernethy pers. comm.).
Impacts on species
  • Co-benefits
    • Unknown
  • Risks
Impacts on ecosystems
  • Co-benefits
  • Risks
Impacts on society Ease of reversibility
  • Irreversible
    • Methane is irreversibly destroyed in these removal approaches, therefore reversing the impact is not possible.
    • Significant amount of infrastructure may be required.
Risk of termination shock
  • Low risk
    • Methane is destroyed in methane removal approaches. However, cessation of methane removal activities would immediately increase the net flux of methane to the atmosphere, which would increase the impact of this potent, short-lived climate pollutant.

Projects from Ocean CDR Community

Read More

Governance considerations
Version published: 
September 13, 2024 - 9:18pm
September 13, 2024 - 9:18pm September 9, 2024 - 7:05pm September 6, 2024 - 10:08pm September 5, 2024 - 7:21pm August 28, 2024 - 3:28am

International vs national jurisdiction

  • Likely national jurisdiction, but some atmospheric approaches could be international jurisdiction.

Existing governance

  • There are no international or national laws or regulations designed specifically for methane removal. See methane emissions reductions section for further information on methane. Note the recent paper from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law which explores the international and U.S. laws governing methane removal via atmospheric oxidation enhancement (Webb et al. 2024).

Justice

  • Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
  • Distributive justice
    • Unknown
      • Funding on methane reductions and removals is currently 1% of funding from international climate finance (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
      • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that the benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Procedural justice
    • Unknown
      • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
      • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Restorative justice
    • Unknown
      • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.

Public engagement and perception

  • This is an emerging field with limited information in the public sphere, although attention is growing.
  • Stakeholders will need to be informed of tradeoffs and the relative risks of action and inaction (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
  • There is an effort in progress by the United States’ National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine to develop a research agenda for atmospheric methane removal.
  • Public support will require coordinated research, governance, and stakeholder engagement (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).

Engagement with Indigenous communities

  • Unknown
International vs national jurisdiction
  • Likely national jurisdiction, but some atmospheric approaches could be international jurisdiction.
Existing governance
  • There are no international or national laws or regulations designed specifically for methane removal. See methane emissions reductions section for further information on methane. Note the recent paper from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law which explores the international and U.S. laws governing methane removal via atmospheric oxidation enhancement (Webb et al. 2024).
Justice
  • Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
  • Distributive justice
    • Unknown
      • Funding on methane reductions and removals is currently 1% of funding from international climate finance (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
      • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that the benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Procedural justice
    • Unknown
      • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
      • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Restorative justice
    • Unknown
      • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
Public engagement and perception
  • This is an emerging field with limited information in the public sphere, although attention is growing.
  • Stakeholders will need to be informed of tradeoffs and the relative risks of action and inaction (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
  • There is an effort in progress by the United States’ National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine to develop a research agenda for atmospheric methane removal.
  • Public support will require coordinated research, governance, and stakeholder engagement (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
Engagement with Indigenous communities
  • Unknown
International vs national jurisdiction
  • Likely national jurisdiction, but some atmospheric approaches could be international jurisdiction
Existing governance
  • There are no international or national laws or regulations designed specifically for methane removal. See methane emissions reductions section for further information on methane. Note the recent paper from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law which explores the international and U.S. laws governing methane removal via atmospheric oxidation enhancement (Webb et al. 2024).
Justice
  • Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
  • Distributive justice
    • Unknown
      • Funding on methane reductions and removals is currently 1% of funding from international climate finance (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
      • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Procedural justice
    • Unknown
      • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
      • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Restorative justice
    • Unknown
      • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
Public engagement and perception
  • This is an emerging field with limited information in the public sphere, although attention is growing.
  • Stakeholders will need to be informed of tradeoffs and the relative risks of action and inaction (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
  • There is an effort in process by the United States’ National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine to develop a research agenda for atmospheric methane removal.
  • Public support will require coordinated research, governance, and stakeholder engagement (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
Engagement with Indigenous communities
  • Unknown
International vs national jurisdiction
  • Likely national jurisdiction, but some atmospheric approaches could be international jurisdiction
Existing governance
  • There are no international or national laws or regulations designed specifically for methane removal. See methane emissions reductions section for further information on methane. Note the recent paper from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law which explores the international and U.S. laws governing methane removal via atmospheric oxidation enhancement (Webb et al. 2024).
Justice
  • Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
  • Distributive justice
    • Unknown
      • Funding on methane reductions and removals is currently 1% of funding from international climate finance (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
      • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Procedural justice
    • Unknown
      • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
      • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Restorative justice
    • Unknown
      • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
Public engagement and perception
  • This is an emerging field with limited information in the public sphere, although attention is growing.
  • Stakeholders will need to be informed of tradeoffs and the relative risks of action and inaction (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
  • There is an effort in process by the United States’ National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine to develop a research agenda for atmospheric methane removal.
  • Public support will require coordinated research, governance, and stakeholder engagement (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
Engagement with Indigenous communities
  • Unknown
International vs national jurisdiction
  • Likely national jurisdiction, but some atmospheric approaches could be international jurisdiction
Existing governance
  • There are no international or national laws or regulations designed specifically for methane removal. See methane emissions reductions section for further information on methane. Note the recent paper from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law which explores the international and U.S. laws governing methane removal via atmospheric oxidation enhancement (Webb et al. 2024).
Justice Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
  • Distributive justice
    • Unknown
      • Funding on methane reductions and removals is currently 1% of funding from international climate finance (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
      • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Procedural justice
    • Unknown
      • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
      • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Restorative justice
    • Unknown
      • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
Public engagement and perception
  • This is an emerging field with limited information in the public sphere, although attention is growing.
  • Stakeholders will need to be informed of tradeoffs and the relative risks of action and inaction (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
  • There is an effort in process by the United States’ National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine to develop a research agenda for atmospheric methane removal.
  • Public support will require coordinated research, governance, and stakeholder engagement (Abernethy and Jackson 2024).
Engagement with Indigenous communities
  • Unknown

Projects from Ocean CDR Community

Read More
Help advance Arctic Sea Ice road maps. Submit Comments or Content
Arctic Protection
Pollution Management
Ice Management
Solar Radiation Modification
Surface Albedo Modification

Pollution Management
CH4 emissions reductions
CH4 removal

CH4 removal
State of Approach
Knowledge Gaps
First-Order Priorities
Help advance Arctic Sea Ice road maps. Submit Comments or Content